genghiskhan

The wild card means that the White Sox are probably going to make the playoffs no matter what. They would have to do a major big-time fold for the Indians AND the runner-up team from the AL East to pass them. Then again, that's not as unlikely as pooping away 13 1/2 games of a 15-game lead is.

Describes the whole Cub rotation, except for Zambrano, really. Carlos has had another excellent year, but Wood was a non-factor, Prior wasn't exactly dominant, and Rusch and Maddux have thrown up a 4.59 and 4.31, respectively.

Man, even now they still can't sell out that stadium. 36,543 attended yesterday's game, which translates out to 4000 empty seats.

This is a pointless stat. The only reason he's third on the team is because of injuries. If the 3B, LF and RF had all been healthy this year, Eckstein would rank 6th on the team at best. How about "his 58 RBI are only five off his career high"? Anyhoo, he's been a most excellent surprise. Putting the Renteria money into Mark Mulder worked out quite nicely.

I don't trust Marquis. Not at all.

Eckstein hit his eighth home run today. His 58 RBI are third on the team. And he's outperformed both Renteria and Cabrera in just about every offensive category. An absolute steal. And I was most upset when we signed him.

Yeah, it's hard to see the W.S. making the series now. I would like a chance at revenge against the Red Sox, actually. But they might miss the playoffs completely.

I don't think Dusty Baker is that much of a manager. But I tend to agree with the poster upthread that the Cubs simply weren't that talented. Remember, in their moment of glory in 2003, the Cubs won only 88 games, and last year they won 89. And most people would probably agree that this Cubs team was not as good as the 2003-04 Cubs. The pitchers were brittle. The shortstop was brittle. Sosa and Alou weren't adequately replaced--and even with Sammy's rapid decline, his PRODUCTION from 2003-04 wasn't replaced. The Cubs were a badly flawed team who were pumped up in the preseason expectations game, partly by the natural optimism of a rabidly loyal fanbase and partly by a sports media that was still in love with the potential of Prior and Wood. The Cubs aren't a playoff contender, and barring some major changes, they won't be next year either.

St. Louis over Chicago in six!

I'll take a Cardinals-White Sox World Series.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/madhops_42/carnivale_tree_small.jpg Great sig picture. I really miss "Carnivale". Anyway, if the criteria applied in 2004 were applied for 2005, Carpenter would win the Cy Young. Clemens won it last year despite trailing Jake Peavy in ERA and Randy Johnson in just about every category, because Clemens went 18-4 and all the writers said "Wow, 18-4, that's cool!". Now in 2005 it appears that whoever wins the ERA title must automatically get the Cy, even though that has never been the determining factor before. One suspects the real rule is "The pitcher who wins the ERA title must win the Cy Young if that pitcher's name is Roger Clemens".

You have to really try to strike out against Mark Mulder.

National anthem...still haven't changed it to "America the Beautiful". :x

I'd take Grudzielanek over Kent, because Kent has the range of a tree stump.

Good morning, all. The Cardinals should do all right this series--coming off a sweep of Milwaukee without their two best pitchers, and I think the matchups in this series are favorable. And the Cubs, it has to be said, appear to be quitting on Baker. We'll see if they can get up for St. Louis.

Hendry deserves credit for fleecing the Pirates in 2003. Or maybe the Pirates are just morons. But that was some good dealing, definitely. Overall, though, I think Jocketty wins.

Because I believe it to be fact. Because I believe Jocketty's record in trading over his tenure speaks for itself. But it's not a "fact" that can be proven as incontrovertibly as "hydrogen has one proton", so you are free to feel different.

if you're basing how good a GM is only on trades, your boy doesn't exactly have an advantage. ::shrugs:: Matter of opinion. Jocketty has made some excellent trades, I think.

The reason the Cardinals have been winning over the past few years and the Cubs (2003 excepted) have not is that the Cardinals are a better team, and they're a better run team. Our GM is better than the Cubs GM--look at all the trades Jocketty has made, then look at the deals Chicago has made, and tell me who is better. Our manager is better. Given the "Fire Dusty!" vitriol I see regularly on the front page of the main forum, I doubt too many readers here would dispute that. And obviously our team is better. Last year the Cardinals sailed through the regular season, and the Cubs were wracked with injuries, and we heard all about how the Cardinals were winning only b/c so many Cubs were hurt. Now the Cardinals have been absolutely savaged with injuries, with four players from the opening day roster out and two (Rolen and Walker) looking unlikely to return in a meaningful way in 2005. And the Cardinals are sailing to another division title. The Cubs? Well, they lost Nomar, but Nomar was playing terribly even before his injury, and he's not what he used to be anyway. If Chicago hopes to establish itself as a regular presence atop the NL Central standings, a whole lot is going to have to change. Probably have to clean house completely, tear down and rebuild. And stop relying on Kerry Wood to be an anchor in your rotation.

Some putz on ESPNews just did the same thing, saying Barrett threw to third "instead of tagging home plate for the final out". Lord.

Yes. I said that b/c the Astros remaining schedule is really easy. They have all those games against the Cubs, two games against the Cardinals on the 27th and 28th of September, and most of the rest of the season against the bad teams from the NL Central and West.

Too bad Rodriguez can't count to three. He has gotten doubled off TWICE in recent days on infield popups b/c he forgot that there was only one out.

Depends upon the definition of "a shot". Houston has a better pitching staff, a five-game lead, and an easier schedule. Maybe the best answer is that there's a shot, but not a great one. Cubs would have to probably win at least seven of those ten games, split all the games they have remaining with the Cardinals, and hope for some breaks.

Oh, I can't agree. Rollins came almost halfway down the third base line. If Barrett and Ramirez execute properly, they catch him in a rundown and take the game to extra innings. Best case scenario for Philly, IF Barrett keeps his head, is that Rollins scampers back to third base. There's something to be said for being aggressive and making things happen, but that play, with Rollins coming halfway home when the ball couldn't have been more than five feet from Barrett, was more reckless than aggressive. Or simply careless, since nobody, not Rollins, Barrett, or Burrell, seems to have realized that Burrell was out by rule. The play really should have ended with Barrett smothering the baseball and all the runners going back. But Rollins made a mental mistake and then Barrett made an even bigger one.

That has to be one of the weirdest endings I've ever seen. What on earth was Barrett thinking? Isn't he supposed to be good defensively?